The interaction of CO and Pt(100). II. Energetic and kinetic parameters
J. Chem. Phys. 78, 7448 (1983); doi:10.1063/1.444735
Issue Date: 15 June 1983
You are logged in to this journal.
We have investigated the mechanism and driving force of the CO-induced phase transition of the Pt(100) surface. In a preceding paper, we have concentrated on the mechanism by which CO removes the surface reconstruction. As discussed, the clean reconstructed (hex) surface of Pt(100) is more stable than the unreconstructed (1×1) phase, but if the CO coverage on hex exceeds a small critical value (
0.05) nucleation of (1×1) patches occurs and proceeds until, at
=0.5, the entire surface has been converted to the (1×1) phase. In this paper we present data which quantitatively describe the energetics of this system. Values for the heats of adsorption of CO on both the reconstructed and unreconstructed phases, as well as values for the preexponential factors for the desorption rates, are determined from quasiequilibrium LEED measurements at different coverages. The difference in the low coverage heats of adsorption of CO on the hex and (1×1) phases (27.5 vs 37.5 kcal/mol) is the driving force in the Pt phase transformation during adsorption. On the other hand, during desorption, the hex phase does not return until the coverage has decreased below 0.3. This measurement allows an estimation of the difference in stability between the clean (1×1) and hex phases: about 9–13 kcal per mole of Pt atoms. The transition between the two phases which are in equilibrium [COgas+hex-Pt(100) vs COads+(1×1)-Pt(100)] shows a hysteresis due to kinetic limitations. These kinetic effects are characteristic of a nucleation process involving a critical coverage.
The Journal of Chemical Physics is copyrighted by The American Institute of Physics.

0.05) nucleation of (1×1) patches occurs and proceeds until, at
=0.5, the entire surface has been converted to the (1×1) phase. In this paper we present data which quantitatively describe the energetics of this system. Values for the heats of adsorption of CO on both the reconstructed and unreconstructed phases, as well as values for the preexponential factors for the desorption rates, are determined from quasiequilibrium LEED measurements at different coverages. The difference in the low coverage heats of adsorption of CO on the hex and (1×1) phases (27.5 vs 37.5 kcal/mol) is the driving force in the Pt phase transformation during adsorption. On the other hand, during desorption, the hex phase does not return until the coverage has decreased below 0.3. This measurement allows an estimation of the difference in stability between the clean (1×1) and hex phases: about 9–13 kcal per mole of Pt atoms. The transition between the two phases which are in equilibrium [COgas+hex-Pt(100) vs COads+(1×1)-Pt(100)] shows a hysteresis due to kinetic limitations. These kinetic effects are characteristic of a nucleation process involving a critical coverage.
The Journal of Chemical Physics is copyrighted by The American Institute of Physics.
| History: | Received 28 December 1982; accepted 3 March 1983 |
| Permalink: |
http://link.aip.org/link/?JCPSA6/78/7448/1 |
KEYWORDS and PACS
- 82.65.My
Physical chemistry Surface processes Sorption and accommodation coefficients - 82.65.Dp
Physical chemistry Surface processes Thermodynamics of surfaces - 68.45.By
Surfaces and interfaces; thin films and whiskers (structure and nonelectronic properties) Solid
fluid interface processes
Sorption equilibrium
- 64.70.Kb
Equations of state, phase equilibria, and phase transitions Phase equilibria, phase transitions, and critical points of specific substances Solid
solid transitions
- YEAR: 1983
PUBLICATION DATA
0021-9606 (print)
1089-7690 (online)
REFERENCES (21)
-
P. J. Estrup and J. Anderson, J. Chem. Phys. 45, 2254 (1966); [ISI]
-
T. N. Taylor and T. J. Estrup, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. 11, 244 (1974); [ISI]
-
H. Conrad, G. Ertl, and E. E. Latta, Surf. Sci. 41, 435 (1974); [Inspec] [ISI]
-
J. A. Van den Berg, L. K. Verheij, and D. G. Armour, Surf. Sci. 91, 218 (1980); [Inspec]
-
R. P. N. Bronckers and A. G. J. de Wit, Surf. Sci. 112, 133 (1981). [Inspec] [ISI] [ChemPort]
-
P. J. Estrup and J. Andersson, J. Chem. Phys. 46, 567 (1967); [ISI]
-
S. Semancik and P. J. Estrup, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. 18, 541 (1981). [ChemPort]
-
R. J. Behm, P. A. Thiel, P. R. Norton, and G. Ertl, J. Chem. Phys. 78, 7437 (1983). [ChemPort]
-
P. A. Thiel, R. J. Behm, P. R. Norton, and G. Ertl, Surf. Sci. 121, L553 (1982). [Inspec] [ISI] [ChemPort]
-
P. R. Norton, J. A. Davies, D. K. Creber, C. W. Sitter, and T. E. Jackman, Surf. Sci. 108, 205 (1981). [Inspec] [ISI] [ChemPort]
-
C. R. Helms, H. P. Bonzel, and S. Kelemen, J. Chem. Phys. 65, 1773 (1976). [ISI] [ChemPort]
-
K. Heinz, E. Lang, K. Strauss, and K. Müller, Surf. Sci. 120, L401 (1982). [Inspec] [ISI] [ChemPort]
-
C. T. Campbell, G. Ertl, H. Kuipers, and J. Segner, Surf. Sci. 107, 207 (1981). [Inspec] [ISI] [ChemPort]
-
D. A. King, Surf. Sci. 47, 384 (1975), and references therein.
-
M. A. Barteau, E. I. Ko, and R. J. Madix, Surf. Sci. 102, 99 (1981). [Inspec] [ISI] [ChemPort]
-
A. Crossley and D. A. King, Surf. Sci. 95, 131 (1980). [Inspec] [ISI] [ChemPort]
-
R. W. McCabe and L. D. Schmidt, Surf. Sci. 66, 101 (1977). [Inspec] [ChemPort]
-
S. R. Kelemen, T. E. Fischer, and J. A. Schwarz, Surf. Sci. 81, 440 (1979). [Inspec] [ISI]
-
K. Heinz, E. Lang, K. Strauss, and K. Müller, Appl. Surf. Sci. 11/12, 611 (1982).
-
J. A. Davies, T. E. Jackman, D. P. Jackson, and P. R. Norton, Surf. Sci. 109, 20 (1981). [Inspec] [ISI]
-
J. W. Christiansen, The Theory of Transformations in Metals and Alloys (Per gamon, Oxford, 1975);
D. A. King and G. Thomas, Surf. Sci. 92, 210 (1980).








